Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. I am essentially opposed to burning books even when they incite others to violence. But freedom is either an absolute or it is conditioned on not inciting others to violence. Anything else is rationalized bigotry.

Search This Blog

Monday, October 8, 2012

Liberal Democracy and Simon Hughes

The Liberal Democrats have a
problem. The Party appears to possess an
inordinate number of political hypocrites and while the political animal may,
as a species, not be worthy of ethical admiration what I find curious, even
disconcerting about them is not the Janus faced sophistication which is a
common trait amongst all politicians but the venom masked as
humanity that seems so salient a feature of the Party of illiberal thought.

Perhaps it is my failure to
understand the high minded and internationalist liberalism of the LibDem world-view
that is at fault but first I must consider the prejudice that seems immune to
logic or to history.

The Liberals grew out of the Whig
party in 1859 and enjoyed success through leaders such as Gladstone, Asquith
and Lloyd George but by the 1920’s had been permanently replaced as the largest
opponent to the Conservative Party.They
declined until the 1950’s, when in alliance with the Social Democrats began a resurgence
in their appeal. In 1988 the two parties formally merged into the Liberal
Democrats (LibDems).

To quote Jonah Goldberg (“Liberal
Fascism”) H.G. Wells delivered a major speech at Oxford University
where he called for a “ ‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the banner of
“Liberal Fascism.” Wells continued by explaining that “Fabian socialism had
failed because it hadn’t grasped the need for a truly ‘revolutionary’ effort
aimed at the total transformation of society….they (the socialists) were just
‘too nice’.”Wells said “I am asking for
a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened
Nazis.”

Post Shoah, H.G Wells came out in
support of a Jewish State. But to quote Bryan
Cheyette (Lecturer at the School
of English, University of Leeds)
“In H. G. Wells' vision of a Utopian
world state, a separate Jewish culture represented a corrupt and reactionary
impediment to progress and order. Wells stopped short of advocating
annihilation but he blamed the existence of anti-Semitism on the Jew's failure
to assimilate to the Universalist mainstream.” Of course by this he meant the
‘predominant’ English mainstream.This
is not that different from what the LibDems believe today.

As I stated in an earlier blog “The Middle Classes in Crisis”:

“the Liberal
Democrats are the political party of fashionable prejudice, its ideas and
ideals shaped by intellectual currents rather than by ethical principles; this
protean political force attempts to transect differences by sanctimonious and
tendentious political posturing that leaves them hovering indiscriminately
between Left and Right.

A short but notorious list of recent
LibDem grandees would include Baroness Dr Jenny Tongue and in addition to its
most infamous bigot, the following:

Lord Wallace (academic, writer and senior
LibDem) told the Board (the UK’s
main representative Jewish body) that Israeli policy towards the Palestinians
was "mistaken" and that, as a democracy, Israel
should be held to higher standards than Saudi Arabia.This may be the expression of a logical mind
but not of a moral one. The prejudice that underlies Lord Wallace’s moral
destitution is so appalling I find any emotions beyond contempt and shame to be
unworthy.

Lord Phillips (Andrew Wyndham Phillips),
another LibDem bigot kicked upstairs to the unelected House of Lords (in
gratitude for his contribution to the party) stated that “many” Jews are
“deeply prejudiced” although “not lacking in intelligence” according to the JC
of 25/2/2011.

It would be patronizing and condescending
were I to pontificate on the superior intellect of the Liberal Democrats. It
could be pointed out however that because they are unlikely to contribute
anything positive to British politics they should be disbanded as a party.This is particularly relevant in light of
what seems to be their incurable predilection towards sweeping statements,
generalizations and prejudice.An
incapacity to present a nuanced analysis of the modern world without resorting
to cliché and sophism is not of course restricted to LibDems but it does appear
to be a characteristic of LibDem leadership.

North West Euro-MP Chris Davies was forced
to resign as leader of the British Liberal Democrat MEP's (he remains a LibDem
member of the European Parliament) after he told a Jewish constituent (amongst
other disgraceful and deeply offensive statements) that “I hope you enjoy
wallowing in your own filth." This was an unsolicited comment and while an
extreme example, it underlines the visceral reaction of the LibDem leadership
to any interaction with people of Jewish faith who fail to provide obsequious
cover for the party’s prejudice. I cannot imagine any British political party
apart from perhaps the extreme left or extreme right using such ugly language.

Any war may be played out over a number of
canvases – there is the propaganda war, the surrogate war (fought by
intermediaries), and the economic war (played out as part of the first two
above) and yes, there is hot war, with lots of death and destruction. Israel has faced conflict with Britain since
long before its modern foundation. By allowing the free migration of Arabs to Palestine while actively preventing Jews from exercising
the same right to immigration, Britain
signed the death warrant for European Jewry. By arming and controlling an Arab
army it was actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem’s
Jews and the Arab rape of east Jerusalem.Many of its politicians have waged a
propaganda war against the State of Israel by financially supporting its enemies.
Britain today pushes for the
containment of Israel within
defenseless borders while it subverts the state within the UN as elsewhere
through its active support for Israel’s
enemies.

One could argue that not all of Britain’s
politicians are as morally indigent or incoherent in their approach to Islamic
extremism as the LibDems are but it does seem curious that it is the LibDems
who too often link Jewish self-determination to all that is wrong with the
world.

International economic and cultural
harmonization is a Utopian ideal.It is
undesirable when it is predicated on the extinction of the rights of one group
for the greater good; that is another marker for what constitutes ‘liberal fascism’.
What David Remnick, editor of New Yorker Magazine called “pandering, married to
ignorance” is the LibDem justification for prejudice against the Jewish State
and it seems, Jews.

We could be generous. We could say that
the Liberal Democrat Party, in spite of its top tier university educated
parliamentary representation is not prejudiced at all. It is simply,
linguistically challenged. And I will explain why.

In any discussion we should always be
cognizant of the need for semantic precision in our narrative. For example, the
Jewish community is fragmented, disorganized and fiercely jealous of its
individuality and independence (which every Jewish group will defend against
every other Jewish group). And yet, we use terms such as ‘world Jewry’ and ‘the
Jewish people’ and then interpret this grouping of words as if Judaism is a
monolithic, hegemonic, all-controlling, hermetically sealed bloc.But when we talk about the Muslim world or the
Christian world we do not similarly convey a vision of overbearing or controlling
conspirators. This may in part be due to
a missionary legacy that needs to justify the same negative characteristics
that are then superimposed on its victims.Or perhaps an Arabist foreign policy is so deeply ingrained within
British society that it is not possible to repair the damage within the ruling racist
bureaucratic psyche?

Mohammed Asif, Chief executive of ‘i-Engage’
(a British and Muslim PAC) wrote that “Zionism is not part of the Jewish faith;
it is a political ideology that has advanced the idea of a national struggle to
establish a homeland for the Jews in the modern era.” ‘i-Engage’ defended the
right of radical Islamists to preach in Britain and encouraged the
activities of antisemitic Muslim groups on British university campuses.

With respect to M. Asif the yearning for Zion is spiritually
central to Jewish faith. We do not require a physical pilgrimage or Hajj to
substantiate our identity as Jews.As a
basic interpretation of what Zionism is, the right to Israeli
self-determination, irrespective of
religious identity, is fundamental to reconciling the Arab / Muslim world
to Israel.

Simon Hughes was formerly President of and
is current Deputy Leader of the LibDems.He fully supported the hiring of ‘i-Engage’ which in June 2010 wrote to the
Education Secretary to express its opposition to Zionism being taught in Jewish
Schools).

The problem with ‘i-Engage’s’ line of
thinking was that just as they had the right to express their opposition to
Zionism (or any other ‘ism’), equally, I could demand a ban on the Koran being
placed in any British schools and not just those independent Muslim schools
that receive state funding.The Koran
does not acknowledge a separation between religion and political engagement and
says some rather unpleasant things about non-Muslims that could be interpreted
as providing sanction to incitement against anyone with whom they disagree.

On one LibDem site I noted the insidious claim
that the Arab world is incapable of antisemitism because the Arabs are Semites.

This canard is false on two levels. First:
a jingoistic, fantasist theological narrative declares the Arab race to be Gods’
sole legatee from the beginning of time through to the current age.It is therefore unsurprising that the Arab
world tends to be racist in its self-identification when the Arab ‘race’ is gloriously
unique in history. Secondly: antisemitism is specifically meant to denote hatred
of Jews. To quote Wikipedia:

“While the term's etymology might suggest that
anti-Semitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in
the late 19th century in Germany
as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass
("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then.”

Antisemitism is much more simply defined than
this. It is present when one is incapable
of transferring ones prejudice against Jews to any other group or
individual.

And so finally, it was reported that Simon
Hughes believes the time has come to consider a “one state solution” to
Israel-Palestine.To quote the Jewish Chronicle of 21st September 2012
“a single federated state in which Muslims, Jews and Christians had separate
constitutional rights may now be the best solution.” This angers me.Perhaps Simon Hughes meant to say the final
solution to the problem, after all, there is not a single Muslim state that is
capable of guaranteeing the right to self-determination of its own minorities
nor one that is able to respect its citizens rights.For a human rights lawyer as Mr. Hughes is to
propose this, is to display at best inexplicable ignorance of Muslim society.Mr. Hughes continued “JC readers needed to
understand the genuine feelings of anger and frustration felt by his colleagues
over Israeli government policy.” Damn it, we Jews just don’t listen when our
betters tell us what to do.

I would not say that the LibDems are guilty
of wholesale duplicity, deception and dishonesty in their constancy of
anti-Zionist propaganda but I do question the frequency with which they seem to
attract attention to themselves by employing antisemitic arguments.